145 comments:

what is it with these morons? Can they not see that the Palestinians have no interest in living in peace with Israel? They are only interested in Israel's destruction. They have no historic right to the land and should be in Jordan, if I remember my mid-twentieth century correctly.

I'm sure American liberals professing solidarity with Palestine gives the Palestinians a warm, tingly feeling all over. Like Chicken Soup for the Anti-semitic Soul. As though the PLO wouldn't blow these idiots to smithereens the first chance they got.

And those white pants? So unflattering! You could draw the roadmap to peace on that butt. I wondered: why would she wear those in public when optimum exposure is the goal? Then I realized: She's dressed like a Palestinian flag! Except without green. Because it's hard to coordinate your outfit like that without looking like Christmas.

That rear end would have made a damn good human shield in March of 2003. It would have been the only formidable thing standing between the US military and Baghdad. An opportunity, missed. *sigh*

I'll guess these people don't know the full history of Islamic enlightenment, and how it continues to manifest itself today. This is, of course, understandable. Since their primary sources of knowledge, PBS and America's selective education system, seem to revel in Islamic exploits throughout the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and Africa.

I will also guess they do not know that the war of aggression initiated by "Palestinians" and their allies was fought against Jews, Christians, pagans, and dissenting Muslims; and that it was merely a continuation of the their order to dominate unbelievers, and, of course, competing interests (which includes opposing Islamic sects).

They probably have no clue why the "two state solution", Israel and Jordan, failed.

Why today, people like Assad oppose them to violent extremes, including summary executions.

They may as well demand Jews, Christians, and moderating Muslims submit to their totalitarian order. However, there is no sane individual who would do so voluntarily.

You just can't make that claim hold water, Mitochondri-Allie. In every bastion of liberal thought, academia, Hollywood, the MSM, every one, Israel is vilified and "Palestine" is lauded. Undergrads wear kaffiyehs, Mearsheimer and Walt garner honors. Our president insists Israel return to 1967 borders. The UN sanctions Israel more than all other nations combined. I'm sure I can't quantify it, but you know as well as I do that there are a great many "anti-Zionist" Jews. You can't turn Ned's observation aside by putting your hands over your ears and saying la-la-la.

My understanding is the Kingdom of Israel, which was the northern of the two kingdoms of the Jews, was destroyed around 720 BC by the Assyrian Empire and became the land of Samaria.

The Kingdom of Judah, which was the southern of the two kingdoms of the Jews, was conquered and later destroyed by the Romans during the Jewish-Roman Wars between 66 and 135 AD. I was then known as Syria Palæstina.

(The Crypto Jew) If you are rooting for Israel to kill off all the Palestinians, either by violent confrontation or by simply starving them to death, then seeing such a banner is certain to piss you off...

You’re an idiot Julius, more so than normal…Let’s see who’s pulling for the “…killing off of all Palestinians”? Not Israel. Violent confrontation? Really, IF Eretz Ysrael wanted to “kill off all the Palestinians” via violent confrontation you might think a NUCLEAR power could do so…“…or by simply starving them to death”-really if there is a shortage of food in the West bank, show it, please…and ask yourself who runs the West bank. In the Gaza Strip, Israel allows the flow of aid and food into Gaza, the ONLY proviso is that shipments to Gaza must first be inspected in Ysrael….

The Palestinians have SELF-MADE problems, not Zionist =caused problems….but you keep telling yourself these Progressive “Truths” because I wouldn’t want any facts to cause you any headaches.

(The Crypto Jew) Yes, that is what I did ask. If you look at a map of the Middle East prior to 1947, is there a country of Israel depicted

If you look at a map in 1945, you won’t find a country called “India” either…please explain how any of this matters in any real manner. Prior to 1949 there was no People’s Republic of China; either…does that invalidate them, too, in some obscure manner? Or does the timeline/map question only apply to Jews?

So Palestinians, care…Nazi’s cared about the existence of Czechoslovakia or Poland…the USSR over Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia? Simply because you “CARE” doesn’t mean it’s relevant…and if the Palestinians “care” about the existence of the US or Spain, should I care?

"If you are rooting for Israel to kill off all the Palestinians, either by violent confrontation or by simply starving them to death, then seeing such a banner is certain to piss you off..."

And who is rooting for that? Ever? What has been the motivation for closing the borders? You feel having things blown up isn't a sufficient reason? The very moment rockets get launched from a Indian Reservation, or a reservation government sends someone over the border to kill families in their home is the day those reservations disappear. Yet we have different rules for Israel. Is there a single country out there that has held the same borders from inception to now? I say we protest until Poland gets back its pre-'45 borders.

"If you look at a map in 1945, you won’t find a country called “India” either…please explain how any of this matters in any real manner. Prior to 1949 there was no People’s Republic of China; either…does that invalidate them, too, in some obscure manner? Or does the timeline/map question only apply to Jews?"

Deekaman stated the Palestinians have no historic right to the land and should be in Jordan. Why should the Palestinians not be permitted to live in Palestine which has existed since 135CE?

If the Palestinians really cared, they might have accepted the UN Partition Plan, as they did not, well I guess they have to live with the consequences…HAD they accepted the UN plan they’d not only be celebrating their 64th Birthday this year, they’d have a much LARGER nation than the one there are currently trying to achieve.

Because Palestine has NOT existed since 1365 AD….Palestine is a MODERN invention…it was Seluecid Syria, Roman Judea/Syria, a part of the Byzantine Empire, probably a part of Syria, a Seljuk of the Ottoman Empire, a portion of Transjordan, Kingdom of…..You could do with a little history lesson.

"Because Palestine has NOT existed since 1365 AD….Palestine is a MODERN invention…it was Seluecid Syria, Roman Judea/Syria, a part of the Byzantine Empire, probably a part of Syria, a Seljuk of the Ottoman Empire, a portion of Transjordan, Kingdom of…..You could do with a little history lesson."

OK, so the descendents of those various peoples have a right to live in the land of Palestine, correct?

I love Hostel 2 where the woman is in the bathtub and has the other women hanging over her and takes a sickle and slices her apart and takes a bath in her blood. I tell my husband I want to do that to him. Tour De Force from the little girl from Welcome To The Dollhouse.

Your map didn’t “amp” as far as I care they had a chance in 1947…didn’t take it…had an option in 1991/2 didn’t take it…had a chance with Ehud Barak…”ditto”….even now the Palestinian Authority maps show NO “Israel” just a “Palestine” from the River to the Sea….but you keep thinking that Palestinians just want a state next to Israel…funny had they REALLY wanted that, they’d have had their own state since 1947…And funny isn’t it you ignore Egypt’s and Jordan’s part in the “stateless” condition of the Palestinians…Gaza occupied, West Bank ANNEXED by Jordan…but sure it’s Israel’s “fault” there is no Palestine.

No Tyrone, I haven't conceded.Obama knows that statehood for Palestine at this time is not possible because,is real and Palestine must still come to a meeting of the minds, lots of work to do before that happens, may never happen.

"There wasn’t a nation of “Palestine” prior to 1947 either 36…or a nation of the United States of America prior to 1776…does anyone really care about things like that?"

The Palestinians care.

If they did, they wouldn't have left. The Russians inveigled them to leave on the promise the Arab states, backed by the Russians, would drive the Israelis into the sea.

Didn't happen and the Arab states treat the Palestinians like dirt.

They made their choice and now they have to live with it. They could make some accomodation with Israel, but they'd have to agree to Israels' right to exist. They won't and all the Lefties, afraid of the monster they helped create, back the Palestinians, hoping the cutthroats will leave them alone.

Criminals,terrorist, and leftist all fall from the same socialist tree. You have something I want, so I'm gonna take it. The civilized world would do itself a favor if it dropped the civility, and just executed the lot of them.

Look, MA, you didn't say that you, a liberal, don't support Palestinian terrorists, you said it was not a "rock solid liberal stance." This is patently false, as I have shown. Neither did I claim that support for gay marriage was a "rock solid" conservative stance. I would agree that the opposite is probably true. You falsely generalize your own opinion to all liberals, then criticize me for not doing the same thing to all conservatives.

"They made their choice and now they have to live with it. They could make some accomodation with Israel, but they'd have to agree to Israels' right to exist. They won't and all the Lefties, afraid of the monster they helped create, back the Palestinians, hoping the cutthroats will leave them alone."

How much choice did the Palestinians have in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted on November 29, 1947 by the General Assembly of the United Nations?

Joe, I don't support what you call Palestinian Freedom Fighters. The fight needs to be over and as long as there are terrorist acts by Palestinian groups against Israeli citizens, then there cannot be statehood for Palestine.

"If you look at a map in 1945, you won’t find a country called “India” either…please explain how any of this matters in any real manner. Prior to 1949 there was no People’s Republic of China; either…does that invalidate them, too, in some obscure manner? Or does the timeline/map question only apply to Jews?"

Deekaman stated the Palestinians have no historic right to the land and should be in Jordan. Why should the Palestinians not be permitted to live in Palestine which has existed since 135CE?

I'll take your comment seriously when the Arabs quit occupying Kurdistan and get out of the lands they conquered during the Muslim expansion. The Palestinians of today are Arabs that largely occupied the current lands at the same time the Jews did in the 19th and 20th century. And Jews have have lived continuously for three thousand years.

(The Crypto Jew) How much choice did the Palestinians have in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted on November 29, 1947 by the General Assembly of the United Nations

As much as the Zionists did…and the British “leaned towards” the Palestinians….and had they accepted the Plan they’d have a larger state than they can get today, and they’d be celebrating their 64th Birthday…INSTEAD, they simply squat in squalor and are ruled by Islamo-Fascists or Authoritarian Kleptocrats.

"They made their choice and now they have to live with it. They could make some accomodation with Israel, but they'd have to agree to Israels' right to exist. They won't and all the Lefties, afraid of the monster they helped create, back the Palestinians, hoping the cutthroats will leave them alone."

How much choice did the Palestinians have in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted on November 29, 1947 by the General Assembly of the United Nations?

As much as the Jews did.

They might have gotten nothing. The Arabs supported Hitler and the US and Britain could have declared all of Palestine forfeit.

"On SOME of it, they seem intent on taking ALL of it….have been since the mid-1930’s."

That doesn't seem to be the case:

http://imeu.net/engine2/uploads/HistoricCompromiseMap.jpg

Additionally, Israel recently granted the go-ahead for construction of 1,100 new Jewish housing units in east Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ruled out any freeze in settlement construction, raising already heightened tensions.

10/15/11 8:30 PM

The Israeli's don't need your permission to build housing in their country. The Arabs lost their wars on the battlefield, that is their problem, not ours and they are no friends of ours. The Palestinians danced on 9/11. To hell with them. They are not our problem. Let them make the best deal with the Israeli's they can. And if they are dumb enough to keep pushing terrorism the Israeli's should just kick them out like the Kuwait''s and Saudi's did in 1991. In the meantime pack your bags because you are occupying some poor Indian's land. Practice what you demand of others.

"The Palestinians of today are Arabs that largely occupied the current lands at the same time the Jews did in the 19th and 20th century. And Jews have have lived continuously for three thousand years."

So, with that thought in mind, are the Native Americans entitled to a homeland in North America since they lived here centuries before the arrival of the Europeans?

"As much as the Zionists did…and the British “leaned towards” the Palestinians….and had they accepted the Plan they’d have a larger state than they can get today, and they’d be celebrating their 64th Birthday…INSTEAD, they simply squat in squalor and are ruled by Islamo-Fascists or Authoritarian Kleptocrats."

In early 1947 the British announced their intention to abandon the Mandate, and turn the question of the future of Palestine over to the UN. The General Assembly decided to set up the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to investigate the cause of the conflict in Palestine, and, if possible, devise a solution.

All eleven members of UNSCOP agreed on termination of the mandate. Seven members endorsed a partition plan favored by the Zionists, while three members endorsed a federal state that had been rejected by both Jews and Arabs. No members endorsed the unitary Arab state recommended by the Arab Higher Committee.

"The Israeli's don't need your permission to build housing in their country. The Arabs lost their wars on the battlefield, that is their problem, not ours and they are no friends of ours. The Palestinians danced on 9/11. To hell with them. They are not our problem. Let them make the best deal with the Israeli's they can. And if they are dumb enough to keep pushing terrorism the Israeli's should just kick them out like the Kuwait's and Saudi's did in 1991. In the meantime pack your bags because you are occupying some poor Indian's land. Practice what you demand of others."

I'm not demanding Israel be dissolved. However, I do believe the Palestnians are entitled to live in a land their ancestors have been living in for centuries. The fact that we are an ally of Israel makes it our problem as well.

"The Palestinians of today are Arabs that largely occupied the current lands at the same time the Jews did in the 19th and 20th century. And Jews have have lived continuously for three thousand years."

So, with that thought in mind, are the Native Americans entitled to a homeland in North America since they lived here centuries before the arrival of the Europeans?

They have reservations.

PS The American Indians or, more accurately, Siberian-Americans, spent most of their time before the white man came stealing the land from each other.

Exactly what land belonged to which tribe would be an interesting study.

I'm not demanding Israel be dissolved. However, I do believe the Palestnians are entitled to live in a land their ancestors have been living in for centuries.

How about all the Jews who got expelled from Arab countries in the late 40s, are they "entitled" to go back to Egypt and Morocco and Syria and reclaim their ancestral homes? Who is marching on their behalf?

The Greeks had lived in Anatolia for centuries before the Turks. At the end of WWI, with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, they saw their big chance. With the encouragement of Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson, they rose up. Their intent was to restore the glory of Byzantium. The Turks had other ideas. The Greeks were defeated and, under very harsh conditions, banished from Anatolia. Do the descendents of these Greeks have the right of return? Can they blow up buildings and random Turks to dramatize their demands? When this knotty question is settled, can the Germans return to Konigsborg? Likewise, there were Jews in Baghdad centuries before the Arabs. They had to leave in a hurry. They probably won't insist on a right of return, but they would surely welcome a settlement for the property they left behind.....My point is this: of all the millions of refugees, exiles, and martyrs produced by the 20th Century, what makes the Palestinians so special?

“How about all the Jews who got expelled from Arab countries in the late 40s, are they "entitled" to go back to Egypt and Morocco and Syria and reclaim their ancestral homes? Who is marching on their behalf?”

I certainly don’t support anyone being expelled from their homes, hence my belief the Palestinians are entitled to remain in the land formally known as Palestine.

As far as who is marching on the behalf of Jews expelled from Egypt, Morocco, Syria as well as other countries, wasn’t that the whole purpose of the Zionist movement? Did the Zionists ever push for a repatriation of Jews to countries they were expelled from or was it only focused on Palestine which had been invaded and conquered numerous times in the past?

Why should the Palestinians not be permitted to live in Palestine which has existed since 135CE?

There were no "Palestinians" in the area that the Romans renamed Palestine in 135CE. A handful of rich landholding Arab families can trace their presence in Palestine to the Muslim conquest in the 7th and 8th century. Most of the population growth of the Arabs in Palestine took place after the start of modern political Zionism. As Jewish immigration stimulated the local economy, Arabs also immigrated, from the surrounding Arab countries.

Since you asked about history, just try to find any history about a "Palestinian people" before 1948.

Actually, before 1948, the term Palestinian was more likely to be used to refer to a Jew who lived there.

Try to find information about Jews in Palestine in the 17th century. You'll find lots, since that was when the Jewish mystics of Safed were active. Try to find information about a "Palestinian people", a group of local Arabs with some kind of local national identity, in the 17th century, and you'll search in vain.

As Ephraim Kirsh points out in Palestine Betrayed, one reason why so many Arabs ran away in 1948 was that though they had clan affiliations, they really had no national identity.

The Palestinians are a modern political fiction created as a weapon against the Jewish state.

“According to US law, they are separate nations and their laws are enforced on their tribal lands.”

Are they recognized by the U.N. as independent nations?

“But the land is ours. We won, they lost; that they have any land at all is a step above most countries under similar circumstances.”

As I stated up thread, the Kingdom of Israel, which was the northern of the two kingdoms of the Jews, was destroyed around 720 BC by the Assyrian Empire and became the land of Samaria. The Kingdom of Judah, which was the southern of the two kingdoms of the Jews, was conquered and later destroyed by the Romans during the Jewish-Roman Wars between 66 and 135 AD. It was then known as Syria Palaestina.

So, by you reasoning, since the Jews lost they should have no claim to land in Palestine. That seems to support the Palestinian position.

Matt - Conservatives are neither racist nor tolerant of those who are. Democrats and liberals sometimes are racist or tolerant of those who are. Robert Byrd. Al Gore, Senior. Reverend Wright. Need I say more?

You did hear those #OWS types yelling at those they believed were Jewish going into work at NYC and CHI banks, didn't you?

“According to US law, they are separate nations and their laws are enforced on their tribal lands.”

Are they recognized by the U.N. as independent nations?

Doesn't matter. US law recognizes them.

“But the land is ours. We won, they lost; that they have any land at all is a step above most countries under similar circumstances.”

As I stated up thread, the Kingdom of Israel, which was the northern of the two kingdoms of the Jews, was destroyed around 720 BC by the Assyrian Empire and became the land of Samaria. The Kingdom of Judah, which was the southern of the two kingdoms of the Jews, was conquered and later destroyed by the Romans during the Jewish-Roman Wars between 66 and 135 AD. It was then known as Syria Palaestina.

So, by you reasoning, since the Jews lost they should have no claim to land in Palestine. That seems to support the Palestinian position.

Wrong again. Legal settlement by Zionists in Palestine began in the late 19th Century and the Partition reflected the boundaries of that settlement. The Zionists' claim is perfectly valid and legal.

PS If the Indians had won, there wouldn't be a white man on the continent - the fate of Cherry Valley NY in 1778 is illustrative. In the same way, there would be no Jews if Hitler had won.

The US and Britain felt Western civilization owed the Jews something and giving them statehood to land they already owned seemed reasonable. As I said, the Arabs were on the other side and, unlike fiend's friends in the Kremlin, the Allies gave them a break.

Similarly, the US was a lot more forgiving to the Indians than if things had turned out the other way.

“There were no "Palestinians" in the area that the Romans renamed Palestine in 135CE. A handful of rich landholding Arab families can trace their presence in Palestine to the Muslim conquest in the 7th and 8th century. Most of the population growth of the Arabs in Palestine took place after the start of modern political Zionism. As Jewish immigration stimulated the local economy, Arabs also immigrated, from the surrounding Arab countries.”

We can get into the semantics about the name of the people who lived in Palestine. However, at the time the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was adopted, the majority of the people in Palestine, 67%, were non-Jewish versus 33% Jewish.

“Since you asked about history, just try to find any history about a "Palestinian people" before 1948.”

“Actually, before 1948, the term Palestinian was more likely to be used to refer to a Jew who lived there.”

I believe the inhabitants of Palestine were called Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews prior to 1948.

“Try to find information about Jews in Palestine in the 17th century. You'll find lots, since that was when the Jewish mystics of Safed were active. Try to find information about a "Palestinian people", a group of local Arabs with some kind of local national identity, in the 17th century, and you'll search in vain.”

I’m not saying there were no Jews living in Palestine at that time, but there was no country of Israel.

“As Ephraim Kirsh points out in Palestine Betrayed, one reason why so many Arabs ran away in 1948 was that though they had clan affiliations, they really had no national identity. The Palestinians are a modern political fiction created as a weapon against the Jewish state.”

There was no Jewish state prior to 1948. If Palestine was not partitioned by the U.N. would the need for this so called weapon exist?

So, by you reasoning, since the Jews lost they should have no claim to land in Palestine. That seems to support the Palestinian position.

10/15/11 10:18 PMI'm not demanding Israel be dissolved. However, I do believe the Palestnians are entitled to live in a land their ancestors have been living in for centuries. The fact that we are an ally of Israel makes it our problem as well.10/15/11 9:28 PM

.10/15/11 9:28 PMSo, with that thought in mind, are the Native Americans entitled to a homeland in North America since they lived here centuries before the arrival of the Europeans?10/15/11 9:17 PM

Which cheek are you speaking out of? As for your comment the US should get involved because we are an ally of Israel, really, why? Why should the US push Israel to endanger themselves by placating their enemies who are also no friend of ours? Why is there such an urgent need to create a state that never existed for an ersatz people all the while we ignore real peoples like the Kurds who are occupied by Arabs, Persians and Turks? If you are such an advocate for Palestinian Statehood why aren't you equally insistent on demanding a Kurdish State? In the meantime why aren't demanding that Arabs stop treating Palestinians like occupied peoples by keeping them in 'refugee' camps and denying third generation Arabs citizenship? In the interim practice what you preach and get off some poor Indian's land.

Yes, U.S. law. How about the laws of other nations? Do the Native Americans have any embassies from other nations located on their reservations? Are they part of the U.N. General Assembly?

“Wrong again. Legal settlement by Zionists in Palestine began in the late 19th Century and the Partition reflected the boundaries of that settlement. The Zionists' claim is perfectly valid and legal.”

And how about the claims of Palestinians who legally owned property?

“PS If the Indians had won, there wouldn't be a white man on the continent - the fate of Cherry Valley NY in 1778 is illustrative. In the same way, there would be no Jews if Hitler had won.”

“The US and Britain felt Western civilization owed the Jews something and giving them statehood to land they already owned seemed reasonable. As I said, the Arabs were on the other side and, unlike fiend's friends in the Kremlin, the Allies gave them a break.”

Didn’t many Jews own property in Germany? Was there ever a discussion of creating a homeland in Europe for the European Jews? What was the US and British plan for the people already living in Palestine as more and more Jews immigrated there from Europe?

“Similarly, the US was a lot more forgiving to the Indians than if things had turned out the other way.”

I’m not a Native American so I really can’t say from their point of view how good or bad they have been treated. However, they once lived throughout North America and now they live on relatively small reservations. I guess they believed they were fighting invaders of their ancentral home.

“Which cheek are you speaking out of? As for your comment the US should get involved because we are an ally of Israel, really, why?

Deekaman stated up thread that the Palestinians have no historic right to the land and should be in Jordan. I contend they have as much right to live in the land formally called Palestine as the Jews. The fact that we are an ally of Israel is why we are involved in the situation. There is strong support for Israel in this country.

“Why should the US push Israel to endanger themselves by placating their enemies who are also no friend of ours?”

Do you think Israel continuing to build in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is placating the Palestinians?

“Why is there such an urgent need to create a state that never existed for an ersatz people all the while we ignore real peoples like the Kurds who are occupied by Arabs, Persians and Turks?”

Why do you belittle the Palestian people by calling them ersatz? As far as the Kurds, maybe if they had the same influence in our country as Israel has, they would receive greater backing. Why is that not the case?

“If you are such an advocate for Palestinian Statehood why aren't you equally insistent on demanding a Kurdish State?”

I never said I didn’t support the Kurds. However, this blog post is about the Palestinian situation, correct? Again, why don’t the Kurds have greater support in this country?

“In the meantime why aren't we demanding that Arabs stop treating Palestinians like occupied peoples by keeping them in 'refugee' camps and denying third generation Arabs citizenship?”

I believe many Palestinians are in camps controlled by Israel. I know Palestinians who live in Israeli controlled areas have their freedoms restricted.

“In the interim practice what you preach and get off some poor Indian's land.”

If the U.N. decided to form a homeland for the Native Americans in the U.S. that included your area of the country, I'd venture to say that you would fight like hell to defend your property.

autothreads - There were no "Palestinians" in the area that the Romans renamed Palestine in 135CE. A handful of rich landholding Arab families can trace their presence in Palestine to the Muslim conquest in the 7th and 8th century. Most of the population growth of the Arabs in Palestine took place after the start of modern political Zionism. As Jewish immigration stimulated the local economy, Arabs also immigrated, from the surrounding Arab countries.

Bullcrap.DNA haplotype studies show what was common wisdom all along (Palestinians and Sephardic Jews are kissing cousins). That is, outside dumb Christian rubes who grew up reading the Zionist comic books donated to Churches to amplify and reinforce some biblical inaccuracies to better serve Zionist interests.

Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Palestinians, Sephardic Jews all share a common ancestry going back several thosand years. Then you see genetic drift in less-related peoples - Ashkenazis (more Caucaisan, Slav admixture) Saudis, Egyptians (other Arab bloodlines) Then, basically further drift out where you end up with Celts, Ethiopean Jews, Chinese etc having nothing in common with the Levant peoples.Arabs that don't like Palestinians, and that means most Arabs - call them the Jew's cousins. And Ashkenazis who look down on "slower, less successful Sephardim" - swear there is no difference. Hardly surprising since much of the Palestinian population is of ethnic Jews that converted to Christianity, and shortly later, to Islam.

The Zionist myths of arriving in an empty desert, which they made bloom and only then did Arabs seeking great job oppportunities the wise Jews created?All bunk, only believed in the USA.The Ottoman 1896 census shows who was there before any Zionist immigration started...Same people that lived there for 8,000 years, with each successive conquest leaving its genetic contribution.

Right CedarFart. The Middle East was just overflowing with burgeoning masses of people and the population was never much smaller there or anywhere else compared to what it is now. Population growth is a myth.

Those "Palestinians" were in all likelihood Jews who converted to Islam or Christianity after Muhammad's and the pope's conquests. Not that it matters to those of us for whom culture matters more than Blut und Boden.

cubanbob - The US and Britain felt Western civilization owed the Jews something and giving them statehood to land they already owned seemed reasonable. As I said, the Arabs were on the other side and, unlike fiend's friends in the Kremlin, the Allies gave them a break.

Britain gave the Jews the right to colonize Palestine because they owed the Jewish bankers that financed much of Britains WWI effort. Quid pro Quo. By the early 20s, the Brits had already started to deeply regret that

The Arabs were allies in WWI, most were allies in WWII, and except for Nasser era dalliances and as a reaction to the US "tilt" to Israel - the Islamic nations, including the Arabs were staunchly anti-communist and more allied with the West than the Soviets.

You realize you use Arabic numerals whenever you have a discussion with your mom about how much money it will cost you for another blow job?

Do you feel bad using Arab numerals?==============And Ritmoridiculosio -"Right CedarFart. The Middle East was just overflowing with burgeoning masses of people and the population was never much smaller there or anywhere else compared to what it is now... "Those "Palestinians" were in all likelihood Jews who converted to Islam or Christianity after Muhammad's and the pope's conquests. Not that it matters to those of us for whom culture matters more than Blut und Boden."

1. There were always more than just Jews living in the Levant. Even back long, long ago when Jews briefly ruled chunks of it.

2. When talking about who was there..DNA and Ottoman, Brit census figures are a lot solider a lot of evidence than your "culture" BSing.

3. Jews who became Christians did so before the Islamoids came, not during the Crusades...though some Palestinians of Jew and Arab blood undoubtedly reconverted during that time. Then back to Islam when the Arabs drove the Westerners out.

Maybe I would if I thought that everything any Arab hand had touched or any Arab mind had come up with was part of a huge, evil conspiracy, the way your feeble mind does when it comes to anything having to do with Jews.

Dumbass.

There were always more than just Jews living in the Levant. Even back long, long ago when Jews briefly ruled chunks of it.

So what? Doesn't do much to bolster your DNA-based theories, does it?

When talking about who was there..DNA and Ottoman, Brit census figures are a lot solider a lot of evidence than your "culture" BSing.

This is just plain incoherent. As I said, reconciling your racism with reality, history and empiric evidence must be causing some of your internal microchips to short-circuit. Try replacing them with the Zionist variety.

But that would be inconceivable to you. Instead, try to gain some clarity by thumbing through one of your heavily dogeared copies of Mein Kampf, and re-write.

"The Arabs were allies in WWI, most were allies in WWII, and except for Nasser era dalliances and as a reaction to the US "tilt" to Israel - the Islamic nations, including the Arabs were staunchly anti-communist and more allied with the West than the Soviets."

sigh.

Yes the Arabs were such great allies that the various Arab leaders feted the representatives from the Third Reich. Some military organizations in the Third Reich adopted the fez. etc etc etc.

Ever hear of the invasion of Iraq? The one where the Arab leaders of Iraq switched sides to the Axis and it took the British to overthrow that government and install a new one more in line with the Allies?

You know. 1941.

@everyone: This stuff isn't all that difficult. It's just history. If you can't get a decent grasp on the basics of the history of the region then really. Don't waste everyone's time.

So did they show their solidar[it]y with Palestine by firing rockets with explosive warheads into local synagogues?

Perhaps the demonstrators took a few of their kids, wrapped them up in suicide vests, and sent them to blow up the local Hillel House? [Er, can someone confirm for me that the University of Wisconsin allows a Hillel House on campus. Wikipedia says 'yes', but everyone knows that Wikipedia is not authoritative.]

If you look at a map of the Middle East prior to 1947, is there a country of Israel depicted?

This is so tiring, repeatedly. Here's the 1946 Jewish Palestine ... note that the territory encompassed is the same as that today, post 1967 lines in fact. And, it is called, legally, "Jewish Palestine." Today's Jordan was called "Arab Palestine".

Now for the deniers, tell me what other countries established by the French and British Mandates, with names that vary but territories that stayed the same, have given up territory inside of their mandate borders? To enemies no less?

To my knowledge there are none, and we fought a war to re-establish Kuwait, if I recall, with substantial Arab support and participation. All of the mandate countries have ethinc diverisity and internal turmoil ... Jordan ruled by Hashemites, Syria ruled by Allewites, Lebanon once ruled by Christans and Sunnis, now ostensibly by Shiites. I'd say the Arabs living within Judea and Sumaria can dang well accept it, just as others have done.

So why is Israel, aka "Jewish Palestine" expected to negotiate new borders?

Can we go back to 1920 and the original San Remo Accords? To do so would eliminate Jordan, aka Trans-Jordan, which was created by the 1922 Amendments to the San Remo Accord ... how'd that fly do you think?

"The Arabs were allies in WWI, most were allies in WWII, and except for Nasser era dalliances and as a reaction to the US "tilt" to Israel - the Islamic nations, including the Arabs were staunchly anti-communist and more allied with the West than the Soviets."

Safer bet than the sun rising in the east - *against* C-fudd ever stating a fact.

"sigh"

You weren't actually expecting Fudd to say anything that is actually true, especially about da Jooooooos, were you? It's not like we haven't known for decades about the Mufti's alliance with Hitler. Next up - how al Qaeda valiantly tried to prevent Israel from perpetrating 9/11.

Wow Mike. Way to show you've got the intellectual upper hand there. Google shows me that UW actually, lo and behold, does - unsurprisingly - abide by the same 1st amendment standards regarding freedom of religion as everyone else, and that only took 0.25 seconds. But maybe you're either as suspicious of that Jewish invention as C-Fudd is or just hate the idea of non-proprietary information being freely available.

It's been a while, Mike. Glad to see you continuing to fight the good fight. Just as fatuously as before, but it's still a good fight, innit it?

Whatever the cause, propagandists everywhere would be proud to know you've got their back.

In his recent speech Benjamin Netanyahu said, "In my office in Jerusalem, there’s a — there’s an ancient seal. It’s a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there’s a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin — Binyamin — the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there’s been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since."

"This is so tiring, repeatedly. Here's the 1946 Jewish Palestine ... note that the territory encompassed is the same as that today, post 1967 lines in fact. And, it is called, legally, "Jewish Palestine." Today's Jordan was called "Arab Palestine"."

I guess that depends on which depiction of the area you look at:

http://www.masada2000.org/transj.gif

When you say it was legally called "Jewish Palestine" what was the legal document that stipulated that?

The resolution that was drafted at the San Remo conference was not signed by any of the parties involved. The Balfour Declaration was between the British the Zionists and was not supported by the Arabs.

36fsfiend ... interesting what website you take an unattributed map out of context from. Masada2000.org ... really?

You didn't answer my questions regarding the other nations incorporated in the French and British Mandates. I'll add another ... how many of those peoples signed off on the San Remo Resolution, and their assigned borders, following defeat of the Ottomans?

“36fsfiend ... interesting what website you take an unattributed map out of context from. Masada2000.org ... really?”

Can you provide a source document for your depiction of the British Mandate?

“You didn't answer my questions regarding the other nations incorporated in the French and British Mandates. I'll add another ... how many of those peoples signed off on the San Remo Resolution, and their assigned borders, following defeat of the Ottomans?”

What do those other nations have to do with the Palestinian situation? Were there populations in those other regions that were being displaced by outside immigration as was the case in Palestine?

Regarding the map you linked to, you used the terms "Jewish Palestine" and “Arab Palestine” and indicated they were legally established. I looked over the text of the San Remo Conference at the link below, which established the British Mandate, and while I see references to the term “Palestine”, I see no references to a “Jewish Palestine” or an “Arab Palestine.”

http://www.gwpda.org/1918p/sanremo.html

As I understand it, the British, Italian and French governments rejected early drafts of the mandate because it contained the passage which read “Recognizing, moreover, the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute it their national home…”

The Palestine Committee recommended the reference to “the claim” be omitted from the text of the mandate. Although the Allies noted the historical connection of the Jews to Palestine in the Treaty of Sèvres, they did not recognize any legal claim. Additionally, they felt that whatever might be done for the Jewish people was based entirely on sentimental grounds. They believed all that was necessary was to make room for the Zionists in Palestine but not turn the whole country into a Jewish homeland.

Likewise, the original draft of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated “that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people.” However, due to opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet, the final version of the declaration stated “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” In other words, the intent was not to turn all of Palestine into a Jewish state.

1. There are no such thing as a "Palestinian". It's just a made up term. Aka Arab is an Arab is an Arab.

2. Allow Israel to annex the Gaza Strip and forcibly evacuate all Arabs living there.

3. Allow Israel to annex the West Bank and forcibly evacuate all Arabs living there.

4. Relocate all Arabs that used to live in the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan.

5. If the Arabs living in the West Bank or Gaza object, drop a couple hundred thousand pounds of incendiary bombs until they run away.

6. Problems solved.”

During the British Mandate of Palestine, the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to all people residing there, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and those granted citizenship by the Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship"

Your attitude towards those people is the same by many throughout history which has contributed to the conflict in that region. Remember, the Jewish immigrations, or Aliyahtos, to Palestine contributed to conflict and revolts and led to the various partition plans.

1. Because those Arabs left of their own accord in anticipation of a victory by Arab armies ... that never happened.

2. Israel is under no obligation to give citizenship or residency to a group of murderous jackals who have proven themselves as untrustworthy.”

I guess you are referring to the Nakba during which approximately 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it.

Factors involved in the flight include the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes, the collapse in Palestinian leadership, an unwillingness to live under Jewish control, Jewish military advances and fears of massacre after Deir Yassin, which caused many to leave out of panic. Later in the war, Palestinians were expelled as part of Plan Dalet. A series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented the refugees from returning to their homes or claiming their property. The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing.

"The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing."

Very few ethnic cleansings begin, and are continued, by gathered armies by the ethnicity involved.

That's another thing I don't get about the Palestinians being idealized by the otherwise pro-peace movements. These are a people who have waged almost constant war against Israel. Had they not waged war, with the support of Israel's neighbors, the 1948 borders would still be in place. Wiping Israel off the map entirely is a pretty violent goal, and that's precisely the goal the surrounding Arab nations have.

They have been steeped in violence from the very beginning, and while their situation is often troubling in instances, the reality is that it wasn't ethnic cleansing at all, but response to continual violence. The Palestinians have not been a passive victim, but an active combatant.

If you share a home with someone and they threaten to kill you and your family, you won't exactly be kind in letting them move back into the house after they've called their friends, tried to force you out, but you were able to stay put.

“Very few ethnic cleansings begin, and are continued, by gathered armies by the ethnicity involved.”

What are you implying?

“That's another thing I don't get about the Palestinians being idealized by the otherwise pro-peace movements. These are a people who have waged almost constant war against Israel. Had they not waged war, with the support of Israel's neighbors, the 1948 borders would still be in place. Wiping Israel off the map entirely is a pretty violent goal, and that's precisely the goal the surrounding Arab nations have.”

Given the revolts of 1936-1939 and the fact the U.N. partition plan was not accepted by the Arab leadership in and out of Palestine, what was the expectations? Israel seemed prepared for conflict as demonstrated by its success. That region has been the site of conflict for centuries.

“They have been steeped in violence from the very beginning, and while their situation is often troubling in instances, the reality is that it wasn't ethnic cleansing at all, but response to continual violence. The Palestinians have not been a passive victim, but an active combatant.”

Some historians claim the Nakba was ethnic cleansing, not all, as the term has been deleted from Arab children's textbooks by order of Israel's education ministry:

“If you share a home with someone and they threaten to kill you and your family, you won't exactly be kind in letting them move back into the house after they've called their friends, tried to force you out, but you were able to stay put.”

If the Zionist movement hadn't existed, if the non-Jewish people of Palestine had more participation in the development of the Balfour Declaration, which was drafted after the Zionist congress had decline an offer by the British to establish a homeland in Uganda, would this conflict today exist?

“Uganda! Please. Would you take a home in Uganda? Peaceful hasn't been the deal there. Nevermind the native people you'd apparently displace there, eh?”

I’m not familiar with the details of the arrangement, I’m only stating it was offered as an option prior to the Balfour Declaration being drafted which was done without the input of the non-Jewish people in Palestine. Additionally, I wonder why a Jewish homeland for the European Jews wasn’t proposed in Europe following World War II.

“Oh, You mean "Peace" like we've just sent 100+ U.S. Special Force personnel to help quell? ... a conflagration that spreads over 4 or more adjacent countries?”

I guess if the people of Uganda had the same level of influence in the U.S. as Israel has, we may have engaged in that region earlier. Or, if there were large oil reserves in the part of the world, I’m sure we would have been involved much sooner.

“The rest of discussing Israel is not worth our time, what with your vague mapping of "Palestine" to include or not include, as your mood requires, Trans-Jordan.”

I suggest you read Article 25 of the San Remo Conference which addresses the Transjordan Memorandum. That article concerns the March 1921 arrangement between Winston Churchill and as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn regarding the removal of Transjordan from the original territory of the Palestine Mandate along with the condition that provisions regarding a Jewish homeland in the future Palestine (i.e., west of the Jordan River)mandate would not apply in Transjordan.

“I'll start trying to answer some of your questions when you address the ones I've posed much earlier.”

As far as your question as to what other countries established by the French and British Mandates, with names that vary but territories that stayed the same, do not have to give up territory inside of their mandate borders, I already stated that none of those countries had populations that were being displaced by outside immigration as was the case in Palestine. The immigration caused by the Zionist movement resulted in the conflict and revolts in Palestine.

As to your question as to why Israel is expected to negotiate new borders, actually the position of the U.S. and the Palestinian National Authority is the borders should return to the pre-1967 War borders as a condition for a peaceful settlement of the issue. Borders have always been included as part of peace negotiations throughout the centuries.

As far as your question as to whether we can go back to 1920 and the original San Remo Accords since that would eliminate Jordan, aka Trans-Jordan, which was created by the 1922 Amendments to the San Remo Accord, again, read Article 25 of the San Remo Conference which addresses the Transjordan Memorandum. Here’s an article about the Transjordan Memorandum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan_memorandum

Since Transjordan was exempted from provisions regarding the establishment of a Jewish homeland, the provisions of the mandate only applied to that portion of the territory west of Transjordan, i.e., Palestine. So going back to the San Remo Conference wouldn’t change the situation.